The Enchiridion
For those who care to see it nicely formatted PDF of the Enchridion of Indulgences. Unfortunately, it did not have the answers I had hoped for.
An Exercise in Historical Understanding
Incidental to another discussion elsewhere in blogdom the question arose of "unworthy reception of the Eucharist" and its consequences as point out by Paul in 1 Corinthians(?). This is presently understood Catholic Doctrine--If one has committed a mortal sin, he or she should refrain from receiving communion until after confession.
Now, frequent reception of the sacrament of confession is of relatively recent date. (That is, it became the norm closer to our own time rather than closer to the time of the Apostles and St. Paul.) So my question, which I will endeavor to research is what did one do in St. Paul's time? Public confession (there are rubrics and "requirements" for it)? Did St. Paul mean something else at the time, and gradual development of doctrine occur to encompass and define the present protocol? The reason I ask is the Mr. da Fiesole pointed out that many of the comments surrounding this treated the question of reception as a series of rules, and he contended that it was not rules but the reality of the Sacrament. This would seem to imply that if it is presently the reality, it must also have been the reality in the past (unless one wishes to dispose of the much dreaded principle of Uniformitarianism.). If it were the reality in the past, did one simply not ever receive communion again until point of death at which confession and the sacrament were restored? If is is doctrine that governs present reception, does it not constituted an understanding of reality (rubrics and rules) rather than the reality itself?
I know, a minute point, but of interest. And, in reality, utterly trivial. We are bound by what doctrine and dogma are today, not what they were in the past and while the underlying reality has not changed, our understanding of it has been broadened and deepened by the Church's reflection through the ages since the time of the Apostles. In other words, I am saying that I in no way disagree, demur, or find fault with the Church's teaching now OR then, but I am intrigued by the meanings that come from understanding the SEEMING changes.
Humility
Mark at Minute Particulars had a particularly interesting post about humility. I excerpt part of it below to comment:
To a humble mind nothing is more astonishing than to hear its own excellence.caught my eye from the link in the post below. Sure it makes sense at first glance. As another translation has it, "nothing is stranger to a modest person than to hear about his own excellence." But just think about it for a moment. Are any of us really amazed to hear of our own excellence? How deep does humility have to go for one to be truly astonished that another person might find excellence in us?
And I have merely an anecdote to comment on this. Each year, I am taken into my boss' office for my annual review, and every year I come out astonished that I have once again fooled everyone and hidden my utter incompetence. I think it is quite easy to be astonished by hearing of our excellence in certain situations. I never fail to be astonished when someone writes to say that something here has been useful or helpful. Then I think, "Well, I must not have gotten in the way of the Holy Spirit so much that time."
No, astonishment at our own excellence I think is rather the norm for most of us. It is very satisfying and rewarding, of course, but unendingly surprising. And I certainly wouldn't rank my humility as being up their with the Blessed Mother's.
Oh, and here's my chance to astonish Mark if he happens by--his blog is always interesting, articulate, and wonderfully informative. If it isn't on your list of places often visited, you would do well to add it. I never fail to be edified by him or by Mr. da Fiesole at Disputations. There now, two people have a chance to gauge their astonishment. But I do say that I am always blessed when I make the attempt to engage and understand the discussion that comes from either of these two bloggers--at home or abroad.
Ever on the Move
The incomparable Mr. Luse has found yet a new haven. Following him around should earn the intrepid blogger pilgrimage points.
More on Private Revelations
I find this strain of Catholicism detailed below disturbing.
The Seven Our Fathers
and Hail MarysIn a private revelation to Saint Bridget, Our Lord revealed a devotion to honour His Holy Wounds and Precious Blood. It was a daily recital of seven Our Fathers and seven Hail Marys for twelve years:
"Know that I will grant the following five graces to those who recite every day for twelve years (or until their death, should they die before):
1. They will avoid Purgatory.
2. They will be numbered amongst the martyrs, as though they had shed their blood for the faith.
3. I will maintain the souls of three of their children (or relatives) in a state of sanctifying grace.
4. The souls of their relatives, up to four generations, will avoid Hell.
5. They will know the date of their death one month in advance."
This revelation was confirmed by Pope Innocent X who added that a soul will be released from Purgatory on Good Fridays through this devotion.
There are so many disturbing things about this that I don't know where to begin. Let's start with, I miss a day in year seven--do I start all over again, is everything undone? Next, it sounds too much like sympathetic magic. Say these words under these conditions for so many days/months/years and these events will transpire. Would anyone know if they did not?
This is the kind of thing that sends our Protestant brethren shrieking out of the room, and I have to say rightfully so. It may be true, but why would the souls of my relatives be kept from Hell? Do I violate their free will by my recitation of these prayers? Let's just say that it makes no sense to me. I think the habit of saying seven Our Fathers and seven Hail Marys may be a very good thing indeed to cultivate, so long as they are said reverently and with attention to what one is doing. So, for those who are following this rubric, I'm not faulting the praying of these prayers, but I just have to wonder about some of these oddities that crop up.
On the same site is the following:
An efficacious means of obtaining favors from Heaven is to assist at Holy Mass and pray the Stations of the Cross for the Holy Souls in Purgatory, by Susan Tassone, daily for 33 consecutive days for the poor souls in honor of Our Lord's 33 years He spent on earth. What a marvelous Summer Devotion for the Holy Souls.
Now, I have nothing against the Stations of the Cross or praying them for thirty-three days. But what about reading scripture for at least one-half hour every day (under the usual conditions) with is the grant of a plenary indulgence. I understand the same holds true for the public recitation of the Rosary (under the usual conditions). There are a great many very efficacious prayers that don't involve some arcane set of repetitions or extravagant promises. I really don't know what to make of this strain of Catholic thinking. I guess it is a place where I have remained mostly resolutely protestant. I believe in purgatory and I believe int he efficacy of those prayers outlines in the Enchiridion of Ingulgences (1967--I think). And I try to observe these practices, most particularly for individuals who I know who have lost family members. I need to make a more universal practice of them as well, but . . .
Oh well, let's just say that this strain of thinking doesn't compute in my very faulty circuits. I'd love to hear from those who either are more attached to these devotions or who have a better understanding that I do of what all of this means.
Private Revelations
I found this article at the revived TCR very helpful and food for much thought. Many have recently made much of the vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich and having read some of these myself, I don't quite know what to make of them. They strike me in turn as appalling, wonderful, hideous, and dangerous. There is much there to foster faith, but much also that could prove difficult to one whose faith is not mature. So as always, I urge caution when dipping into the works of even the very highest most recommended visionary, but utter abandon in imitating their deep devotion to Christ.
There Are Spirits In the Material World. . .
Father Jim proposes a most interesting discussion starter concerning the presence of spirits, neither angels or demons, in the world. What a curious thing to consider, and how interesting!
Catholic Analysis
I found this commentary on biblical commentaries very helpful and enlightening. I have found commentaries largely lacking what I really want in a commentary and that is practical action and strong ethical and moral teaching. Obviously, that isn't what a commentary is for; however, why not? Why should I have to search through a mountain of abstruse comment on the use of aorist greek verb tenses to derive some small kernel of useful information about how to conduct my life?
This is why I find projects like the Catena Aurea and the modern version issued by IVP (the name of which slips my mind at the moment) very useful. Also useful, to me, is the study bible issued by the Opus Dei group--I believe it is called the Navarre. The commentary there isn't so much about how to interpret this or that obscure verse or phrase, but about how to live a life built upon biblical prinicples and the magisterium of the Church. These are the things that make a commentary or guide or gloss useful. Tell me in very practical terms exactly how to implement a given teaching. Give me step-by-step instructions because sometimes I am a complete idiot and I need them Admittedly, one must use caution when choosing a guide like this, but I get far more out of my study if I can figure out exactly what I'm supposed to be doing than when I sit and ponder the overall effect of fine distinctions of words. These things are necessary and useful to the scholar, and from them much of what I desire in a commentary flows; however, for the most part they do not lead me any closer to God, they lead me closer to philology and related fields. And for a person who looks for any excuse to diverge from the prayerful path, these commentaries are certainly tempting.
Learning Humility through Blogging
One of the very best things I have gained through blogging is a better appreciate of the virtue of humility.
Let's face it--most of us have blogs because we think we have something to say that will be of interest to others. When I started, I thought that I was, perhaps, above average on both the writing curve and on the level-of-interest curve. Well, blogging has cut me down to size. There are a great many better writers--or perhaps writers who take more time with the material they place of the blogs--, a great many better thinkers, and a great many better Catholics than me. I learn from them all and am grateful. I am also grateful for the perspective.
I make my living in a writing-related field. I have always written--so much so that I have lit(t)erally reams of paper tied up in journals, drafts, sketches, and abortive attempts at various forms of writing. I had never disciplined myself to consider lengthy nonfiction writing. And as the results here show, I still have not disciplined myself to good lengthy nonfiction writing.
I am grateful to others who have shown me both different methods of reasoning and better ways to convey what needs to be said. But each day is an exercise in humility as I consider that a great many in the blog world are earning their livings in the field I would rather be in, but never figured out how to break into. Frankly, I can't do Catholic Journalism--I don't have the interest in the passing things of this world to devote energy to describing, exploiting, or announcing them. I could, with some additional work, do Catholic Cultural news--books, music, art. Things that matter in longer terms than the current events. And with some additional work I could do poetry (talk about your lucrative fields!) and fiction.
All of this I have learned from blogging. I have also learned that just about everyone I read could conceivably do the same. One is led to the overwhelming question--"oh do not ask what is it"--what really do I offer the writing community.
And for any of you who are asking the same question the answer is the same--a unique voice, a unique viewpoint. There is no other me (for which many breathe a great sigh of relief) and thus no one who sees as I see or who has been blessed in the way I have been blessed. I cannot tell you about the spiritual experiences of others except as they have been documented, but I can tell you about how I meet God and He meets me. I can tell you about what the view looks like from my perch.
So, if blogging gets you down ocassionally and you wonder what's the point--there are so many better, more talented, more polished, more intelligent, more (whatever) voices out there saying things that people really need to hear, remember that your voice is yours uniquely. Your trials are yours uniquely, and how you meet them, handle them, and share them is something no one else can really tell us about. We grow through this sharing.
Ascent Study VIII--An Excursion into Dark Night of the Soul
Last month's reading leads very naturally into the brief sojourn we will take into Dark Night of the Soul. Please read Dark Night of the Soul chapters 1-3 (pp. 361-367)
Chapter 1
1. What does Saint John of the Cross intend to discuss in the next seven chapters?
What does Saint John say distinguishes beginners from proficients?
2. How does Saint John liken the beginner to a little child? What part does God play in the beginner's prayer?
3. Why are beginners in such need of consolations from God? Why is the work of beginners so feeble?
Chapter 2
1. What are some results of the secret pride beginners take in their prayer?
2. What part does the Devil play in this? What are the results of this?3. Why is it important to listen to and obey the guidance of your spiritual director? What is disobedience a sign of?
4. Why do beginners become envious? What do they do as a result?
5. What is the wrong motivation for asking God to remove our faults?
6. How does one advance and avoid the worst of the imperfections of pride?
7. What do beginners advancing in perfection desire and require?
8. Where are these souls perfected?
Chapter 3
1. What is spiritual avarice? What are its signs and results?
2. How does the well-disposed soul, with the grace of God, avoid these imperfections?
3. What is the only source of purification from these faults?
The Blog Moves On, but Discussion Continues
The difficulty of a blog is that posts keep moving down the line, but sometimes discussion is not over. Forgiveness and its conditions continues to be a source of reflection and thought--at least in the comments box.
Speaking of Quite
We all know that there are some profound differences between English as spoken in the U.S. and English as spoken in the Commonwealth (if that term holds any meaning--The Queen's English, if it does not). Yesterday we received a short lecture about a difference I was unaware of, and which for a time caused some fairly sore feelings in one citizen of Britain. He was working over here in the states and was told that some of his ideas and work were "quite good." In the U.S. "quite good" is seen as a complement, meaning precisely that the work was very good. Apparently the phraseology in the U.K. is used only in an ironic sense as though begging the question, "This is the best you could do?" So the modifier "quite" may be "quite" a no-no when speaking with those who hold to the Queen's English.
Just so's you know.
Always Desiring to be of Service
to the less irenic among us, Timothy McVeigh:Where is He Now? is guarenteed to produce apoplexy in some. But it is quite thought-provoking, and the site itself seems quite worthwhile.
Seeking the Truth
Sometimes (or at least this morning) I wonder if there is any acitivity more rewarding, more invigorating, or more likely to assist in fostering a love of God than seeking the truth. I also wonder if there is any activity as potentially aggravating, blood-pressure raising, or alienating.
To seek the truth means striking a fine balance between being completely empty-headed and allowing every new thought to wash away an old one, and being a rigid defender of interior orthodoxies that may or may not bear any resemblance to the truth.
What is fascinating about seeking the truth is the enormous number of ways in which it can be done. One can study, relying upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit and previous Saints, and think one's way through a give question. One can pray, and largely ignore the presence of questions, waiting for God's will, his own Good Time, and a faithful Dominican or Jesuit (some would say that is an oxymoron) to advance the answer to a question you never knew existed. One can search the scripture with an open heart and look for the only Truth that matters. One can converse and commune with like or unlike-minded individuals and tease out points of agreement or disagreement. It is the points of disagreement that are more likely to be fruitful, as everyone might be mistaken in agreement. There's the potential in a disagreement that (1) either someone is correct or (2) using an Hegelian dialectic one might approach the truth more closely.
To my mind, no matter how it is pursued, there is little on Earth more rewarding that seeking the truth. If we do so, we will find it, or rather, for the faithful Christian, Him, and He will set us free from the burden of being correct, free from the burden of knowing better than anyone else, free from the burden of needing to be somehow superior. In short, He will give us His peace and understanding, which are sufficient and superabundant.
But receiving this gift does not mean that we should abandon the pursuit, for once we know Him, we seek to explore more fully the truth in all of its possible ramifications and meanings. Some are given the scholar's path, having minds hones to the winnowing of wheat and chaff when it comes to information. Others walk the path of prayer--not eschewing the richness of scholarship (just as scholar's do not neglect prayer) but prefering instead the gaze of love that so informs. Still others may walk any of a myriad of paths that the Lord has laid out for them. Each person tracing his own path shows all others the multiplicity of paths available to all. They become beacons and an invitation from the Lord to all the Earth. Each of the Saints walked in the way of truth and showed us how to do so. So now, our legacy, what we owe to the rest of humankind for all generations, is to follow those who came before us in walking the path Christ has laid out for us. We preach far better by what we are and what we do than by what we say.
And Now for Something Completely Different. . .
No, not the man with three buttocks, but rather Optical Illusions and fascinating illusions of motion via Matthias at Credo ut Intelligam.
Also at Credo ut Intelligam, Matthias has been contributing to Mr. Serafin's list of converts and adds one that I had not known of--Gustav Mahler. He also includes the novelist Gertrud von le Fort, author of Song at the Scaffold which may have influenced Bernanos in his construction of the libretto for Poulenc's Dialogue of the Carmelites.
Request for Prayers
My good friend Franklin is once again in need of a job. This is very difficult for the whole family. Please pray that he can find a position that is more along the lines of what he has done/can do, and that he finds it quickly.
Also, please pray for Gordon and his family as they continue to search for work.
On the Young Earth
This started as a response to a comment, but grew too long and too interesting to confine to the comment box. I thank Mr. Culbreath for bringing it up. At the end of a comment below Mr. Culbreath comments, "No one has even said that the Bible tells us the age of the earth. Saying that the biblical record -- that which is recorded as history and was understood as history by Our Lord and the Apostles and the Fathers until the Age of Darwin -- is a reliable guide to the approximate age of the earth is not to concoct scientific theories. It is to give science a necessary starting point, that is all. Sedimentation rates, the fossil record and the rest of it are in fact more comprehensible in a young earth scenario and are not obstacles."
I appreciate your point of view and respectfully demur. Simply the fluid dynamics of what you suggest would entail catastrophic floods--and by this I mean floods that would cover continents every single year to a depth of about 10 meters or more. Unless one posits that the Lord chose to create rocks with fossils in them already--which, while possible, is suggestive in ways that I don't care to contemplate.
Take one example--the Permian sequence of the Glass Mountains of Texas, is on the order of 2 km thick. If we postulate an age of about 6000 years for the Earth (young earth) and say a modest 1,000 years for full incorporation of the sediment into rock, we have 2000 meters of rock deposited in 5,000 years. This yields about .4 meters of sediment per year, or about a foot and a half a year. This Permian sequence resembles modern reef formations. Reefs do not even grow at this rate. Moreover, reefs generally grow in areas with little or no sedimentation--they contain photosynthetic algae that require sunlight to survive. So sedimentation rates along reefs are very low, generally consisting of the disintegration of calciferous algae into constituent components.
The principle of uniformitarianism (by the way developed in large part by Niels Stensen, also known as Steno, Bishop of Münster and presently beatified) suggests that the processes we observe on earth today are a good guide to how these same processes occurred on the Earth in the past--both in terms of rate and activity.
I honestly do not see how a "young Earth" solves any of the difficulties I point out. Further, I do not read the principle of Inerrancy as setting any agenda for science.
I know we disagree on this matter and we will continue to do so. I do not really hope to convince you, and I feel no need to. As you very rightly pointed out in your own location--it isn't a matter of doctrine. If the field you work in does not require resolution of the seeming discrepancies, there is no reason not to hold a young earth theory. Speaking practically, it is may be faith enhancing, but its implications are meaningless of the rest of one's life. That is, other than concurrence with the Bible, it little matters how old the Earth is as one goes about one's daily activities. However, having worked in Palaeontology for quite some time, I know the full nature and extent of the problem and must admit to some aggravation when a person tells me about how much simpler the young Earth theory makes everything.
All of this said, I may misunderstand what you mean by "young Earth." On your blog you state categorically, "Corollary B: The biblical genealogies refer to real people and real events." One must assume that these genealogies also refer to "real durations." (It is a corollary to the inferred working definition of inerrancy.) On that basis one can give a very good approximation of the age of the Earth and the Bishop Ussher chronologies of the seventeenth century did precisely that. Using precisely this data Bishop Ussher estimated the age of the Earth at about 6,000 years. Even multiplying this a thousand times gives rise to the same difficulties outlines above.
I do not believe that the Bible sets an agenda for the faithful scientist. I DO believe the Bible to be absolutely inerrant in all that it teaches. Both of these positions may be held simultaneously with no inherent problem.
I also believe that we both seek the truth in the matter--a truth that will not be revealed in its fullness until we have "Crossed the Bar." I welcome the diversity of opinion under the banner of Charity. Sometimes I have to chill myself from cross-eyed apoplexy before charity can rule. It is an important exercise of a Christian vocation. Thank you for reminding me of that duty.
Inerrancy and Accuracy
The better part of charity forbade me from responding on an individual blog, and particularly from responding before I had gathered the correct information. Having seen evidence for a young Earth cited at one place, I went on to look at other locations that supported a Catholic view of a young Earth. One of the principle supports for the view of a young earth was an understanding of Biblical inerrancy that I believe to be faulty. Just as understanding papal infallibility is facilitated by proper definition, I thought I would throw this open to all and sundry.
The explanation of inerrancy that I have read goes something like this: "The bible contains nothing that was known by the author at his time and in his place to be untrue (there are no deliberate untruths in it). However, there are things that appear to modern eyes and modern study as errors, they cannot be so adjudged because the authors at the time of the composition of the Bible did not have access to this information.
Here is one view of the matter from Fr. Matteo.
The Catholic Dictionary of Theology article on inerrancy says (vol. 3, p. 99): "Leo XIII, by citing the sentence of Augustine that the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach men the inner constitution of matter as it was in no way profitable to salvation, had marked out a line of solution which could be followed in questions of physical science. The inspired writers were not miraculously brought up to date with their science but spoke according to the knowledge available at the time."In his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, 42, Pius XII wrote: "In many cases in which the sacred authors are accused of some historical inaccuracy or of the inexact recording of some events ... a knowledge and careful appreciation of ancient modes of expression and literary forms and styles will provide a solution to many of the objections made against the truth and historical accuracy of Holy Scripture." In these words the Pope implied the necessity and validity of the work of textual criticism and the observance of literary genera.
In Letter 82:1, Augustine remarks: "If I come upon anything in the Scripture which seems contrary to the truth, I shall not hesitate to consider that it is no more than a faulty reading of the manuscript, or a failure of the translator to hit off what his text declared, or that I have not managed to understand the passage."
Pius XII (D.A.S., 47) is not afraid to suggest that some absurdities may remain forever. And Augustine (Letter 149:34) humorously remarks that God put these obscurities in the Bible to make the work of scholars meritorious!
Was there only one, or were there two cleansings of the Temple? There are weighty arguments on both sides--none of them can be called "crazy"--but a fairly sensible suggestion is made by W. Leonard: "(The cleansing of the Temple) did indeed occur ... where John places it. The reason why the synoptic gospels place it at the end may be that Mark and Luke in general follow the arrangement of Matthew which is logical rather than chronological, and which accordingly groups all incidents connected with Jerusalem under the last Jerusalem visit.
From Father Conway, 1929:
INERRANCYDo Catholics regard the Bible as absolutely inerrant? Is not the Bible incorrect on scientific matters? Ares there not many errors and contradictions to be found is the text of both the Old and New Testaments?
Yes, it is an article of faith that the Bible is inerrant, i. e. it contains no formal error. As God is the Author of the Bible it must needs be true. "Inspiration," says Pope Leo, "not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, for it is impossible that God, thus Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church" (Encyc. Providentissimus Deus).
1. We cannot restrict inspiration to certain parts only of this Bible, as Cardinal Newman held in his theory about the unimportance of "obiter dicta" (XIX Century, February, 1884).
2. We cannot restrict inspiration to faith and morals alone.
3. We do not look for precise scientific formulas in the Bible for it does not teach science ex professo. Nothing in its page: contradicts the teachings of natural science, because the same God is the author of natural and supernatural truth. But the sacred writers generally speak of scientific matters in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time they wrote.
4. May Catholics hold the theory of "implicit quotations," i. e., may they set aside a certain passage on the supposition that the sacred writer is merely copying what he finds in some historical record, without thereby guaranteeing its veracity? Yes says the Biblical Commission (February 13, 1905), if solid reasons exist for believing that there really is a quotation, and that the sacred writer does not really intend to commit himself to what he quotes.
5. We must remember that the Bible on its material side is a human document handed down to us in a human way. Therefore we naturally expect to find in each succeeding copy or version material variations, additions, omissions and other errors with which critical scholarship has to grapple. St. Augustine mentions this in a letter to St. Jerome: "When in the pages of Sacred Writ I come upon anything that is contrary to the truth, I judge that the text is faulty, that the translator did not strike the right meaning, or simply that I do not understand it" (Letter to St. Jerome, lxxxii., 3).
6. The poetic imagery and symbolism in both the Old and New Testament, in the Prophets, the Psalms, the Apocalypse, is to be understood figuratively. But "this exuberant symbolism must not be conceived as supplanting reality, but as supporting it, as bringing out its full reality, not so much to our prosaic selves, as to the Orientals for whom so much of it was primarily written" (The Bible, Its History, 159).
It seems clear from these quotes that we are not to regard Holy Scripture as an astrophysics textbook, nor are we to look for complete, concise scientific theories of much of anything within it. Nevertheless, the bible is completely free from all error--so then what is one to make of Adam and Eve and the young Earth? It seems as though certain pockets of Catholicism have become contaminated with an unseemly literalism that has never been the fullness of the understanding of the Church. There is a legitimate debate as to what comprises figurative language. And it seems reasonable to talk about the multiple possible interpretations of Genesis. But even at the time of Leo XIII, it seemed fairly evident that the Church was well aware of seeming contradictions between science and faith. And they are only seeming contradictions. When Scripture is interpreted absolutely literally, you are stuck with contradictions that cannot be resolved--even in simple rhetorical matters. Look at the book of proverbs--"These three things are abomibable to God, yeah these four things earn His wrath." Read it literally, and you're stuck with contradiction.
The choice to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is up to the individual; however, the attempt to construct a science from it is a serious error of judgment. To attempt to build a young-earth science involves so many contradictions in the scientific record that it calls into doubt the credibility of the persons arguments in favor of the Faith that they have which is true. It also raises very troubling questions of rates of sedimentation, the plethora of fossils and why they would be there, etc.
No, one can believe in absolute inerrancy--which until I understood it correctly I rejected--and in modern scientific method. They are not contradictory, nor do they teach the same things. Gould referred to nonoverlapping magisteria--I don't know that I buy his full argument, but I do side with St. Robert Bellarmine, or at least the quote attribute to him, "The Bible does not tell us how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven."
Prayer Request and Samuel Story
The mother of a very good friend of mine, Gary, recently passed away. Please pray for her and for Gary as he goes a great distance to attend to all the matters that so unfortunately accompany becoming an orphan at our age.
I had to go out last night to spend some time with Gary. I explained to Samuel that Gary's mother had died and left. I came back to find Samuel bouncing off the walls because he was so tired. I took him into bed and we said our nighttime prayers. Unsolicited, Samuel prayed for Gary's mother. After prayers and "Pledge of Allegiances" he said to me, "I wish Gary's mother wasn't dead." I found that very moving, that so young a child has begun to develop a notion of sympathy and concern. But then, I would, wouldn't I?
At Minute Particulars
"Praying for Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee" (I couldn't have said it better if I had tried.) An interesting new take on the question of what part prayer needs to play in our lives and our resistance to it in some cases. Beautifully articulated.
Forgiveness and Repentence
Elsewhere I have been engaged in a discussion regarding the necessity of repentence for forgiveness. My correspondent has insisted that it is a necessary prerequisite of even human forgiveness. I wonder. I will readily acknowledge that repentence is, as it were, a "condition" of Divine forgiveness (though I happen to believe that God will do everything possible to encourage and foster that repentence--so I imagine does my correspondent.) My correspondent very rightly points out that there are those who will choose not to receive this grace. And unless I am a Calvinist I cannot posit irresistable grace (isn't that the I in T.U.L.I.P.?). As a practical point I wonder how many do resist it, but I will leave that for the moment so as to not try the patience of my correspondent.
My question is, "Does human forgiveness require that the recipient express repentence?" Or perhaps, "Under Christian obligation does human forgiveness require repentence?" Now, my correspondent, Mr. D'Hippolito asserts:
Forgiveness is provisional upon repentance. I rest my case upon Luke 17: 3-4: "Be on your guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day and returns to you seven times saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." (emphases mine)
And this is correct. And yet. . . I look to the rest of the "book" written by God--all of the subsequent history of His Saints, and we see there innumberable examples of Saints who have forgiven without the repentence of the sinner. St. Maria Goretti comes to mind, as do most of the Martyrs--St Thomas More, St. Edmund Campion. So it would seem that in practice it is possible to forgive without repentence--and in fact, this forgiveness is a supernatural grace presumably granted so that the offenders will realize their sin and seek unity with God. That is a lesser vessel speaks what God is offering in such a way as the recipient is moved to receive it.
So, perhaps in ordinary human relations the passage from Luke is the "normative" path of forgiveness. It certainly is in most of our ordinary practice. It takes an extraordinary person to overlook even a minor slight if the person giving it has not expressed regret. But the examples of the Saints may be the signs of greater grace working through a lesser vessel.
I am still thinking about these matters. However, there is something within that wrestles against the notion that I may only forgive those who repent. Perhaps it might be better to say that I have no standing to forgive those who have not harmed me directly. I cannot go to someone who murdered thousands and say to them that I forgive them, because while the damage is done to the whole, it is up to God to decide their fate. But, I must have some standing to forgive those who persecute me even if they don't repent. That is, if I am a vessel of the Holy Spirit, and it truly is God's will that none will be lost, then I must allow the spirit to work. If so, I might well forgive someone who has done wrong to me with no expression of contrition on their part.
There is much to consider here. And while I don't dislike "esoteric theology" nearly so much as Mr. d'Hippolito, those who know this place know that I have relatively little patience with abstruse doctrines and minute points of law. I rather like someone's notion--was it T.S. O'Rama who implied that perhaps we need both sides to have within the entire body a balance. That is a side that cries "Justice, justice," reminding us of the victims and those who have been harmed, and a side that cries "Mercy, mercy," reminding us that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Admittedly not is so great a way.) If I am to approach the Lord and my fate is determined by how I have wished others were treated, I know I would prefer mercy to justice. This is how I read Jesus's injunction to "Judge not lest ye be judged." On the other hand, there needs to be a voice that cries out to Heaven for the injustices done to the victims of such men. We need to be reminded that these are not trivialities--that such men may have deprived others of a chance of salvation through their depradation and torture. I respect the voice that refocuses attention. Still, for my own sake, and the sake of those I love, I will pray for Mercy, and trust God to do what is right and proper.
As Mr. D'Hippolito points out quoting a correspondent elsewhere--God does not send us to Hell, we go there ourselves, quite willingly. We embrace Hell with Satan, "Better to Reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." God, in fact, provides sufficient and superabundant grace and Atonement to allow all to make it into heaven. We have no disagreement there whatsoever. And perhaps it is better to start at the point and work backwards to see where our disagreement lies. In such a way, all parties might come to a better image and understanding of God.
The Gaffs of NPR--Hawthorne
On All Things Considered this morning a report on Hawthorne via a discussion of the book Twenty Days with Julian and Little Bunny by Papa, there were at least two problems with their coverage. (And this has nothing to do with liberal bias or otherwise.) At one point the interviewer says, "Who would have known that Hawthorne could be funny?" Well, only anyone who had given his books and short stories a moment of consideration outside what they read in their tenth-grade English classes. There are uproarious passages in both The Scarlet Letter and The House of the Seven Gables. Admittedly they are dry, almost acerbic, but these passages are unremittingly funny.
The second faux pas from the editor of the work who says, "Julian Hawthorne became a writer. Nobody remembers that these days." Implying that this knowledge was confined to the rarified world of Hawthorne Scholars. Given that I had only begun to appreciate Hawthorne five or six years ago (apart from isolated pieces like "Young Goodman Brown" and "Rapacinni's Daughter"), I hardly qualify as a scholar, and yet I knew this "rarified" piece of knowledge. In addition I suppose that few know that his daughter founded a Catholic Religious group dedicated to tending to those with cancer and that his son-in-law was a reprobate rouè who made his money from chronicling the details of his illustrious stepfather's life.
Anyway, I think it is the perpetuation of the stereotype of a unapproachable and humorless writer that bothers me so. Hawthorne is neither. A true appreciation of his prose and a careful reading of the stories and novels shows a delightful, wry, shimmering humor always there just beneath the surface. People need to stop perpetuating myths--so here is my small contribution toward controlling the rampant proliferation of misinformation about Hawthorne's writing.